Loading...
Full PacketAuxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, January 30, 2024 - 7:00 PM Mendota Heights City Hall – Council Chambers 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Approval of Minutes a.Approve the December 20, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes b.Acknowledge the December 19, 2023 City Council and Planning Commission Joint Work Session Minutes 3.Public Hearings 4.New/Unfinished Business a.CASE No 2023-28 CUP– to authorize a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct outdoor Padel and Pickleball courts (Glenn Baron – Applicant/Owner) b.2024 Meeting Schedule 5. Adjourn Meeting 1 December 20, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 8 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 20, 2023 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, December 20, 2023 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Cindy Johnson, Brian Petschel, Brian Udell, Jason Stone, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of November 28, 2023 Minutes COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 2023. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Acknowledge November 29, 2023 Council and Planning Commission Joint Work Session Minutes COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT WORK SESSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 29, 2023. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A)PLANNING CASE 2023-29 SD CUSTOM HOMES/SEAN DOYLE, 947 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL – WETLANDS PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the applicants are seeking a Wetlands Permit to allow the permitting and construction of a new single-family dwelling adjacent to Upper (North) Rogers Lake. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. 2 2a. December 20, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 8 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Petschel asked if condition four is traceable to any existing ordinances, and if not, how that could be required of the applicant. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that within the wetland ordinance it does state any other conditions as reasonably applied by the City related to site conditions. She stated that this has been a topic of discussion and has been included on other permits within the past 18 months. Commissioner Petschel stated that his opinion would be that people cannot be required to do things that are not specified and therefore it should be optional. Commissioner Corbett stated that this discussion has been had before. Commissioner Johnson stated that is actually within City ordinance and provided that language. Commissioner Petschel stated that there is not a requirement for native and pollinator friendly plantings, but agreed that a landscaping plan is required. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Sean Doyle, applicant, stated that he and staff discussed condition four as their common practice is not to have a full landscaping plan at this time. Commissioner Petschel stated that his comment was specific to the native and pollinator friendly species, which is not an actual requirement of the City. Mr. Doyle commented that in general they want to comply and be respectful of the property but have not yet committed to a full landscaping plan. He stated that they will attempt to be respectful of the listed species. Chair Field asked if the applicant agrees with condition four as drafted. Mr. Doyle stated that he would agree but would also favor more options. Commissioner Katz referenced the setback and plan for surrounding pool deck. He asked the need to place those things within the setback rather than adjusting those. 3 December 20, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 8 Mr. Doyle commented that those can be adjusted, noting that the pool is not part of this application and those details have not yet been determined. He stated that the no impact zone is different than the setback. He was unsure if the pool deck would need to be outside of the 100-foot setback. Commissioner Petschel commented that the pool deck could be constructed within the 100-foot setback, it would simply require a similar review for the Wetlands Permit. Mr. Doyle commented that they were hoping to receive approvals for the pool and shed tonight but recognize that those will need to come forward separately in the future. Chair Field asked if the plans could be amended to remove the pool and shed to eliminate any confusion of what was approved. Mr. Doyle commented that for his purposes he was showing where those could be located, and the conditions clarify that those elements are not part of the approval. Chair Field stated that perhaps condition 14 is left in there and the site plan is then updated to remove those elements before moving to the City Council. Mr. Doyle confirmed that could be done. Commissioner Udell commented that he would also support removing those items from the site plan. Commissioner Katz asked when a landscaping plan would be submitted. Mr. Doyle stated that they will have that prepared to submit with their building permit application. Commissioner Johnson stated that a detailed site plan showing the landscaping is required for the Planning Commission review. She stated that she also did not show the existing and manmade features within the site and within 500 feet and similar for the drainage which would also be required elements. Commissioner Katz agreed that he does not recall that to be common practice, to forgo the review of a required element with the agreement that staff would review it with the building permit. He stated that he would like to see those required elements before making his recommendation. He appreciated that there is a detailed list of the trees that would be removed but noted that there is no direction on the plants and trees that will be planted in replacement. Mr. Doyle asked for the information that would be desired on a landscaping plan. Commissioner Katz commented that because a pool is potentially being considered, the landscaping may change in the future. 4 December 20, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 8 Mr. Doyle noted that the pool would be subject to its own permitting. He stated that the pool and shed are not on the table for consideration tonight and therefore how that might be landscaped would be irrelevant. Chair Field stated that whether or not the pool is included, there would still need to be a plan for landscaping. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek asked the requirements of the landscaping plan and whether it could be as simple as stating that all disturbed areas shall be sodded or seeded. He stated that there is not a requirement to replace the trees or plants. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the landscaping plan requirement would be met by the grading plan which shows the trees and vegetation planned for removal. She stated that there are no landscaping requirements within the ordinance. She stated that it would not be up to an ambiguous review of a plan, but based on the allowed removal rate of trees and therefore the site and grading plan would meet the requirement for landscaping. Commissioner Katz stated that there are trees along the shoreline being removed and he would think that a landscaping plan would show the replacement. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that additional trees could be planted but that would go above the ordinance requirements as replanting is not required at this rate of removal. Mr. Doyle commented that his request meets the requirement as presented. He stated that staff has deemed the application to be complete. He stated that it would simply be a guess if they were to come back with a detailed planting plan as there is no additional requirement for plantings. Commissioner Petschel stated that he would deem that the site plan, erosion control plan and grading plan would supply the required information. He stated that the applicant is not required to plant anything in replacement. Commissioner Katz stated that if those trees are removed without replacement that will cause an issue with erosion. Commissioner Petschel stated that if grass is planted that would resolve that issue. Chair Petschel stated that the seed mix for erosion control is specified. Mr. Doyle noted that there is also a no disturb buffer. Commissioner Johnson asked the depth of the seed mix. Mr. Doyle commented that the seed mix is specific to the buffer area. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that would only apply if there is disturbance as no disturbance is proposed. 5 December 20, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 8 Commissioner Corbett asked for clarification on the 500-foot area mentioned by Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Petschel asked if the contour lines are needed or just the map and asked if the satellite photo would be sufficient. Chair Field stated that he did not believe that the applicant could deal with future features on a separate piece of land that does not currently have plans. Commissioner Corbett asked if that content would impact this decision. Chair Field did not think that would change the decisions tonight. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that in previous applications an aerial photo is used to meet that requirement as has been done with this case. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Greg Quail, 963 Wagon Wheel, stated that he does not have any objections to the project. He commented that there is a dedicated driveway from the existing bituminous drive that seems to be overbuilt and wondered why that condition is required. Commissioner Petschel commented that appears to be temporary construction for site access. Mr. Quail asked if that would be required as heavy construction equipment would not be going over that area. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he is unsure that is a requirement as less than one acre would be disturbed. He noted that rock access is typical to assist in cleaning dirt from the vehicles before going onto the road. He stated that these are temporary erosion control measures that are removed after construction before the final driveway is constructed. Mr. Quail stated that he would like the drainage requirements to be followed because of the elevation of this property as proposed, ensuring that the drainage from this property does not flow to his property. He stated that the addresses shown on the wetlands map are incorrect. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that they took addresses from Dakota County, which show the wrong address for his property. COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 6 December 20, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 8 Commissioner Petschel asked if the Chair would like a condition added that the pool and shed design be removed from the site plan. Chair Field agreed as he believed that would present a cleaner plan to the City Council. Commissioner Johnson referenced the concern with including native and pollinator friendly plants for condition four. She stated that is a goal within the Comprehensive Plan and a landscaping plan should be shown seeing that those are included. Commissioner Petschel commented that the Comprehensive Plan is not an ordinance and things cannot be required to be done until solidified in ordinance. Commissioner Stone commented that it would seem more of a best practice rather than a policy. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED WETLANDS PERMIT TO SD CUSTOM HOMES/SEAN DOYLE AND FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 947 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING, BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT/DEVELOPER MUST PROVIDE A NEW AND/OR REVISED LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY TO APPROVE ANY ACCESS FROM THE UNDEVELOPED SECTION OF ROGERS AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY. 2.THE APPLICANT/DEVELOPER MUST PROVIDE TO THE CITY A REVISED (OR NEW) SHARED DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT SIGNED BY ALL OWNERS (OF RECORD) OF THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES UTILIZING ROGERS AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ACCESS. 3.THE APPLICANT/DEVELOPER MUST PROVIDE A BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (STORMWATER MANAGEMENT) AGREEMENT TO THE CITY AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW PROCESS. 4.A LANDSCAPE PLAN MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY STAFF PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY NEW BUILDING PERMIT; AND ALL NEW LANDSCAPING MUST COMPLY WITH THE NATIVE AND POLLINATOR FRIENDLY PLANTINGS LIST OF THE CITY. 5.ALL DISTURBED AREAS ADJACENT TO THE ROGERS LAKE EDGE SHALL BE PLATNED OR SEEDED WITH MNDOT SEED MIX LIST #33-261. 6.PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF ANY ESCROW PAYMENT OR ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (C.O.) ON THE NEW DWELLING, ALL DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE SHOWN OR DEMONSTRATED THAT THE NEW VEGETATIVE BUFFER SEED MIXTURE WAS SUCCESSFULLY PLANTED, AND PLANT GROWTH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, TAKING PLACE OR IS HOLDING. 7. BEST EFFORTS WILL BE MADE BY THE CONTRACTOR(S) TO “COME CLEAN, LEAVE CLEAN” DURING THE COURSE OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE 7 December 20, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 8 SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND ENSURE NEW GROUND MULCH OR PLANT MATERIALS ARE FREE OF ANY INVASIVE SPECIES. 8.NO ADDITIONAL GRADING OR OTHER LAND DISTURBANCE SHALL OCCUR WITHIN 37.5 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE ADJACENT WATER BODY, EXCEPT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES (IF NEEDED) OR FOR THE PLANTINGS OF ANY NEW SEED MIXTURES OR LANDSCAPING MATERIALS, AND ONLY WITH CITY APPROVALS. 9.ANY GRADING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS LOT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 10.ANY NEW OR EXISTING SANITARY OR WATER SERVICE LINES WILL HAVE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND/OR ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT. 11.FULL EROSION/SEDIMENT MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. EROSION BARRIERS SHALL BE PLACED AND MAINTAINED ALONG THE OUTER EDGES OF THE NEW HOME PROJECT WORK AREA AND REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL DISTURBED AREAS HAVE BEEN RESTORED. 12.THE NEW DWELLING AND ANY RELATED CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS UNDER TITLE 12, CHAPTER 2, WETLANDS SYSTEMS OF CITY CODE. 13.A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK ON THE NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING. CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL OCCUR ONLY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. WEEKDAYS; AND 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKENDS. 14.THE CONCEPT BUILDING PAD FOR THE FUTURE SHED AND CONCEPT OUTLINE FOR THE FUTURE POOL ILLUSTRATED ON THE PROVIDED SITE AND GRADING PLAN DO NOT REPRESENT OR PROVIDE ANY PREAPPROVAL OF THESE SITE IMPROVEMENTS. FINAL LAYOUT AND SETBACKS MUST MEET ZONING ORDINANCE STANDARDS AND SHALL BE REVIEWED UNDER SEPARATE WETLANDS AND/OR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS IN THE FUTURE. 15.THE APPLICANT SHALL REMOVE THE ARTIFACTS REFERENCING THE SHED AND THE POOL FROM THE MAP BEFORE MOVING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW. AYES: 5 NAYS: 2 (KATZ AND JOHNSON) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its January 9, 2024 meeting. 8 December 20, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 8 New Business Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a brief review of City Council action on planning related items. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:57 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 9 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council and Planning Commission Joint Work Session Tuesday, December 19, 2023 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the work session to order at 5:00 p.m. Mayor Levine and Councilmembers Lorberbaum, Mazzitello, Miller and Paper were present. Planning Commissioners Stone, Johnson, and Petschel were present. Staff in attendance included City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Community Development Manager Sarah Madden, City Clerk Nancy Bauer, and Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp. ZONING CODE UPDATE Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp introduced the zoning code update discussion which was continued from the November 29, 2023, joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting. The last meeting ended with the start of the discussion on Uses - the new Chapter 3. The evenings discussion would focus on the proposed table of uses as they related to the Public/Semi- Public Overlay District and the appropriate mix of uses in the Industrial Zoning District. J. Haskamp provided background information on the Public/Semi- Public Overlay District. The objective was to state that there are the PSP-O uses that are in the R-1 and R-E residential zoning districts. Many of the uses such as schools and places of worship do not require a conditional use permit at present. Instead a variance would be needed to allow expansion or some modification and this could be an extremely complicated process, because the variance is hard to justify. J. Haskamp showed a table of the PSP-O uses which were predominately in the R-1 district. Councilor Mazzitello stated that not all of R-1 is in the PSP-O. J. Haskamp confirmed that was correct. J. Mazzitello stated that it was discussed in the past to put standards in R-1 for institutional use. A map was shown of the PSP-O. C. Johnson asked about creating a park zoning district which is listed in the PSP-O. J. Haskamp responded that a park zoning district was not recommended because it had been tested in court multiple times as a regulatory taking. If a property is assigned a park zoning district, the development and economic rights are taken away from that property. J. Haskamp recapped stating that new language would be added to the Zoning Code regarding the PSP-O. J. Haskamp introduced the topic of retail/commercial uses in the Industrial Zoning district to allow more commercial uses. Restaurants being in the Industrial Zoning district was discussed as it was 10 2b. not currently a permitted use. It was noted that the Planning Commission previously discussed if a restaurant was an accessory to a business such as a distillery it could be allowed in the Industrial Zoning district. The area in the industrial park was discussed regarding semi-trucks, warehouse size and possible uses to serve those working in the Industrial Park. R. Ruzek listed some of the uses currently in the Industrial Zone. Doggy daycare and entertainment complexes were also discussed as a use in the Industrial district which would need a CUP to be a permitted use. J. Haskamp recapped that she would do a tracked version of updates of uses from this discussion and have it ready for the next meeting. J. Haskamp noted that farm animals, in particular miniature goats, was addressed within the draft zoning code. The group discussed food trucks and where in the city to allow food trucks to operate and if they should be a permitted use. J. Haskamp suggested using an administrative/operating permit for food trucks. Rules and requirements would be developed by staff for food trucks and the rules and requirements would be spelled out on the permit. J. Haskamp stated that in the next version of the Zoning Code updates for food trucks would be added. Farmer’s Markets was another topic discussed by the group. J. Haskamp suggested that administrative permits also be used for farmer’s markets and would be added to the draft Zoning Code. J. Haskamp introduced the topic of impervious surface and opened a discussion on the recommended percentage and how was it derived. She explained how the percentages were determined. An extensive analysis was done to come up with the appropriate percentage by district based on the existing land and development cover. Two tools were used. One was the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) done by the Minnesota DNR using area. Most neighborhoods fell in the 25% to 49% category which aligns closely with in the R-1, R-2, and RE standards. The second tool used sampled different neighborhoods. Calculations showed that the he majority of those lots fell below 35%. Lots above 35% would use Best Managements Practices as prescribed by the state of Minnesota and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to help mitigate water surface management. Employing Best Managements Practices was discussed if deviating from the 35%. J. Haskamp stated that no standards exist right now for impervious surface. The shoreland district was also discussed and noted that it has not been adopted by the city. It was decided more discussion was needed to get impervious surface in the Zoning Code. It was noted that the Natural Resources Commission also needs to discuss this issue. J. Haskamp reiterated that for the purpose of this discussion the percentage goal was 35%. Any lot with up to 50% would require a Best Management Practices. Mayor Levine stated that she would like to discuss how we are going to administer/enforce our code. J. Haskamp stated that if employing Best Management Practices an escrow could be required. It could be capped at 35% and anything above that would be non-conforming and variances would then be needed. 11 J. Haskamp stated that overall these discussions about the Zoning Code were being held to maintain neighborhood quality and character. She stated that neighborhood character included the massing of structures, height of structures, and development of the parcel. When the analysis was done for impervious surface the percentage came in at 30 to 35% of the lot that is developed. This percentage would help regulate neighborhood character. J. Haskamp asked if this information was ready to be presented to the public. It was the consensus of the group that it was. J. Haskamp presented information on the proposed Traditional Neighborhood Overlay District (TN- O). The TN-O was specific to areas in the city that were platted prior to 1982. The purpose of the proposed TN-O was to try to protect neighborhood character and allow flexibility from dimensional standards. Haskamp noted that depending on the objective the establishment of a TN-O may not necessarily be the right tool. While a TN-O does provide flexibility to neighborhoods/plats that meet certain criteria, the use of “exception” language based on the metrics such as those built prior to 1982 and substandard lot size or lot area may be just as effective. This would capture a vast majority of the lots and give flexibility to property owners. It was the censuses that new language would be much simpler. Future meeting topics would be murals/wall signs and white vinyl fencing. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 6:46 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk 12 Planning Case 2023-28 (Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 1 of 8 PLANNING STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 30, 2024 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC SUBJECT: Tabled - Planning Case 2023-28 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Glenn Baron PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1415 Mendota Heights Road ZONING: I-Industrial LAND USE: Industrial ACTION DEADLINE: February 29, 2024 (120-day Review Period) INTRODUCTION At the regular Planning Commission meeting on November 28, 2023, a duly noticed public hearing was opened and held to consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Variance at the property located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road. The applicant and property owner, Glenn Baron, proposed to construct outdoor Padel and Pickleball courts (outdoor recreation as an accessory use to the existing approved indoor commercial recreation use of The Heights Racquet and Social Club) and requested a Variance to allow a painted sign on the building wall. During the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission recommended to table the application so that the Applicant could update the proposed site plan to relocate one of the Padel courts away from an outdoor area which was previously approved as a pet relief area for an existing dog training business within the building. The direction provided by the Planning Commission was also to work with staff to investigate signage alternatives that would allow a path forward without a Variance. The Planning Commission voted to table the application until the January 30, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. No public comments or objections were received during the public hearing. The applicant withdrew their application for a Variance for a painted sign on January 11, 2024. The Conditional Use Permit request for accessory outdoor commercial recreation remains an active request, as presented with an updated site plan provided by the applicant. The public hearing remains open with the tabled request. 13 4a. Planning Case 2023-28 (Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 2 of 8 BACKGROUND / SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is located on the northwestern corner of the intersection of Mendota Heights Road and Pilot Knob Road (see map – Dakota County GIS). It is also less than a mile from an I-494 onramp, Highway 13, and Highway 55. The site contains three access points off Mendota Heights Road to the south and one access off Pilot Knob Road to the east, with 155 marked or dedicated parking spaces spread throughout the property. The subject site and the adjacent properties on all sides are zoned and guided for Industrial uses. The Dog Tank (2415 Pilot Knob Rd) and Southview Design are current tenants on the subject property and all tenants share the parking and principal structure on the site addressed collectively with 1415 Mendota Heights Rd. In October 2022, the Applicant submitted a request for a CUP to construct a new indoor athletic club facility (to become The Heights Racquet & Social Club) inside the then vacant space within the multi-tenant building. The CUP was approved by Resolution 2022-82 (adopted 11/01/2022), and the Applicant obtained a certificate of occupancy in the late fall of 2023, allowing the club to open in December. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The Applicant is proposing to construct one outdoor Padel court and four outdoor Pickleball courts on both the northern and southern edges of the property (see Site Plan). The intent is to give club members space to play both sports during Minnesota’s warmer months. Per Ordinance No. 579, outdoor commercial recreation spaces are permitted in Industrial Districts with a CUP provided certain criteria are met. The applicant has provided a revised site plan which removed reference to one of the Padel courses on the south side of the building, as its location was in conflict with the existing pet relief area that was approved for The Dog Tank as part of their operations in Planning Case No. 2018-20 in August 2018. ANALYSIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Pursuant to Title 12-1L-6, the city recognizes that the development and execution of Zoning Code is based upon the division of the city into districts within which regulations are specified. It is further recognized that there are special or conditional uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified in any district or districts without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses on neighboring land or the public need for the particular location. To provide for these needs, the city may approve a conditional use for those uses and purposes, and may impose conditions and safeguards in such permits to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is effectively carried out. The City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use demonstrates the following: a)Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, b) Use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, c) Use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d)Use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. 14 Planning Case 2023-28 (Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 3 of 8 A)The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; nor depreciate surrounding property value. Staff Response: Staff believes the use will not have any negative impacts or effect upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants (of the multi-tenant building) or surrounding land uses; nor will the use be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. Moreover, the use will provide a nice facility for bettering the health and welfare of the community and allow year-round athletic or fitness activities for the city’s residents. The private club use will provide members and participants the ability to stagger their use hours which should mitigate potential congestion or parking issues on the site. Furthermore, the courts will be installed in a largely industrial area, so any noise generated will not be disruptive to any residential neighborhoods. e)The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going basis. Staff Response: The subject property is guided I-Industrial in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan provides the following goal statement: Goal 3: Encourage and support industrial and commercial development in designated areas. 1.The city will use available resources to identify redevelopment needs. This will include cooperation with Dakota County and the Metropolitan Council to achieve redevelopment objectives. 2.Transitions between adjoining land uses will be required for adjacent residential uses, and will be encouraged between compatible land uses (e.g. transition between a general manufacturing and retail use will be encouraged). 3.Amenities within the industrial and commercial districts will be encouraged to promote a more vibrant and attractive place for workers. Staff believes the proposed project is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan that encourages redevelopment of the industrial areas. The proposed use also provides an amenity within the industrial park that can be utilized by both residents and patrons/workers in the area. This type of use is compatible with the spirit and intent of the Industrial Zoning District and provides commercial reinvestment in an existing building. Furthermore, pursuant to Ordinance No. 579, outdoor commercial recreation is permitted in Industrial Districts, provided the following conditions are met: a)The outdoor commercial recreation use must be accessory to a permitted or conditionally permitted principal use. b) Outdoor recreation uses must be compatible and consistent with the principal use. c)Adequate parking must be provided on site. The total area used for the outdoor commercial recreation use shall be used to determine the required number of stalls and calculation based on the principal use. d) A site plan must be submitted to show the site layout, type and location of outdoor recreation uses proposed, the parking configuration, any proposed exterior lighting locations, and proposed landscaping. e)An operations plan must be submitted that includes the proposed hours of operation. 15 Planning Case 2023-28 (Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 4 of 8 a)The outdoor commercial recreation use must be accessory to a permitted or conditionally permitted principal use. Staff Response: Staff confirms that this condition is met. The proposed outdoor recreation amenities will be accessory to the property’s permitted and principal commercial recreation use. b)Outdoor recreation uses must be compatible and consistent with the principal use. Staff Response: Staff confirms that this condition is met. The proposed outdoor recreation amenities are in harmony with the property’s permitted and principal commercial recreation use. A Conditional Use Permit has been obtained for The Heights Racquet & Social Club indoor operations, and this Permit will allow for compatible outdoor courts that will be operated seasonally to supplement the principal operations. c)Adequate parking must be provided on site. The total area used for the outdoor commercial recreation use shall be used to determine the required number of stalls and calculation based on the principal use. Per Section 12-1D-16: Off-Street Parking, the following uses and required parking spaces are noted: Golf course, country club, tennis club, public swimming pool 20 spaces, plus 1 space for each 300 square feet in excess of 1,000 square feet of floor space in the principal structure Skating rink, dance hall, public auction house, golf driving range, miniature golf, trampoline center and similar uses At least 15 spaces, plus 1 additional space for each 300 square feet of floor area over 2,000 square feet Office building and professional office having 6,000 square feet or more of floor area, bank, savings institution At least 1 space for each 200 square feet of net usable floor area Warehouse, storage handling of bulk goods At least 1 space for each 2,000 square feet of floor area The racquet club facility was noted as having 21,250-squarefeet of floor space, with a mix of varying athletic activities, that may fall under the two upper boxed categories of the Parking Regulation standards, namely “tennis club” and “golf driving range,” and “similar uses.” By applying both to the proposed use, staff calculated the following: •Tennis Club w/ 21,250-sf. area: 20 sp. + [21,250-1,000 = 20,250 SF / 300 SF= 68 sp.] = 88 spaces •Golf / Similar Uses w/ 21,250 sf.: 15 sp. + [21,250 – 2,000 = 19,250 SF / 300 SF= 64 sp.] = 79 spaces •Outdoor Pickleball/Padel (Accessory Use to Tennis Club/Golf/etc.): 3,520 SF (Pickleball Courts) + 2,178 SF (Padel Court) = 5,698 SF / 300 = + 19 Spaces 16 Planning Case 2023-28 (Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 5 of 8 •Warehouse Uses (BDS / Am-Vets / FTLD): 23,700 sf. (total) / 2,000 = 11.85, or 12 spaces •Office Use w/ 8,000-sf.(net): 8,000 / 200 = 40 spaces Based on these calculations, the total number or spaces needed to support this racquet club use and the existing or future uses on this site amount to 150 to 159 spaces needed. The Applicant’s Site Plan identifies 155 parking spaces on the site. While most athletic or fitness clubs typically experience a morning, noon, or late afternoon (after work/business hours) rush, the Applicant has stated this facility will be a private club membership only, which should help limit the level of service by allowing members to reserve court times at their own leisure or schedules. The reduction of one Padel court on the applicant’s revised site plan has also reduced the total square footage of accessory outdoor use, adjusting the minimum number of parking stalls which would be required. Because of this change, staff is no longer recommending the condition which required an update to the site plan to incorporate additional parking spaces. Staff believes that the lower end of the range of needed spaces is adequate given the existing tenant mix on the site, as well as the variable hours of operation for the racquet club. Staff recommends including a condition that all parking must be handled onsite for the multi-tenant building, including all activities associated with The Heights Racquet and Social Club. Any indication that the site is under parked or any change of occupancy within the building which increases the minimum parking standards may result in a required amendment to this Permit, and a reasonable solution to accommodate all parking on site must be provided. d)A site plan must be submitted to show the site layout, type and location of outdoor recreation uses proposed, the parking configuration, any proposed exterior lighting locations, and proposed landscaping. Staff confirms that the Applicant provided a site layout plan, which included details about the location of the outdoor recreation amenities, parking, and proposed landscaping. No additional proposed exterior lighting is contemplated at this time. The Applicant has indicated that the outdoor operations will occur seasonally, and outdoor activity will generally be limited to daylight hours. Following approval of the Conditional Use Permit by the City Council, the applicant must obtain all necessary permits from the City, including but not limited to a Grading Permit and Building Permit, and the applicant will be required to provide fully designed and detailed plans with elevations and stormwater management information. The site will be reviewed for compliance with the Land Disturbance requirements, impervious surface, and any additional landscaping which may be proposed. f)An operations plan must be submitted that includes the proposed hours of operation. The Applicant has stated that the operations of the outdoor recreation will be managed consistent with the operations established in the CUP for The Heights Racquet and Social Club. Essentially, the outdoor courts simply supplement and are accessory to the indoor racquet club activities. The hours of operation will be seasonal and limited to daylight hours, anticipated from 7:00 AM to Dusk. Staff believes the proposed project has met the Conditional parameters outlined in Ordinance No. 579, and with the conditions provided herein will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor cause any serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. 17 Planning Case 2023-28 (Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 6 of 8 ALTERNATIVES for ACTION 1. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit with certain conditions and based on the findings of fact that the proposed accessory outdoor commercial recreation racquet club use will be compliant with the standards and regulations of the City Code; or 2.Recommend denial based on the findings of fact(s) determined by the Planning Commission, that the Conditional Use Permit requested herein is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and may have negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and/or properties; or 3.Table the request, pending additional information as requested by the Planning Commission and direct city staff to make certain revisions before final consideration is given on this planning item; with direction to request extension of the application review period from the applicant beyond the 120-days of the current extension, in compliance with Minnesota State Statute 15.99. 18 Planning Case 2023-28 (Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 7 of 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for 1415 Mendota Heights Road, based on the attached findings-of-fact and with the following conditionals of approval: 1)All parking for the multi-tenant building must be accommodated on site. Any indication that the site is under parked may result in required amendments to the Site Plan and/or the Conditional Use Permit. 2)The hours of operation for the Outdoor Commercial Recreation (Padel and Pickleball Courts) shall be seasonal and limited to 7:00 AM to Dusk. 3)No additional exterior lighting was reviewed or approved as part of the Conditional Use Permit. Any exterior lighting, if related to lighting of the Pickleball/Padel courts, may require an amendment to the Permit. 4) The Applicant must obtain all necessary permits from the Public Works Director and comply with the Land Disturbance requirements. 5)The Applicant must obtain all required City permits, including but not limited to, a Grading Permit and Building Permit. 6) The Applicant must obtain any necessary permits from all applicable agencies with jurisdiction over the project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter of Intent (Applicant/Developer) 2.General Location/Aerial Map 3.Site Plan 4. Excerpt from November 28, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes 19 Planning Case 2023-28 (Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 8 of 8 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Planning Case No. 2023-28 Conditional Use Permit for 1415 Mendota Heights Road The following Findings-of-Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit request to install outdoor padel and pickleball courts: 1.The Proposed outdoor recreation use (padel and pickleball courts) is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance for property in the Industrial district. 2.The proposed principal and accessory use are an adaptive reuse of an industrial building which is consistent with the City’s goals for reinvestment and redevelopment with the industrial zoning district. 3.The proposed outdoor padel and pickleball courts are accessory to the principal use of The Heights Racquet and Social Club which is an indoor commercial recreation use. 4.With the conditions included herein, the site will provide adequate parking for the multi-tenant building. All parking will be accommodated on-site and no adverse impacts off-site are anticipated. 5. The proposed outdoor recreation use of padel and pickleball courts is consistent with the surrounding light industrial uses and will not adversely impact the value of surrounding properties. 6. Parking is adequately provided onsite, and there will not be negative impacts to traffic flow on the surrounding roadway network. 20 The Heights Racquet & Social Club 1415 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 November 21, 2023 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Letter of Intent, Conditional Use Permit To Whom it may Concern: The Heights Racquet & Social Club is opening December 1st, 2023 with indoor Padel, Squash and Pickleball courts. We believe the addition of outdoor Padel and outdoor Pickleball courts for use during Minnesota’s warmer months would be greatly appreciated by the members of the club and would enhance the appeal of this club to the City of Mendota Heights. We have submitted drawings showing the addition of four outdoor Pickleball courts and two outdoor Padel courts. No residential structures are in close proximity to either set of courts and as such we believe the installation of these courts would serve to offer a valued amenity without the typical noise complaints incurred when Pickleball courts are located near residential neighborhoods. Padel is a popular racquet sport in Europe and is just now being introduced in the US. We are the first facility to offer the opportunity to learn and play this sport in Minnesota and one of the few in the Midwest. For the uninitiated, Padel is a mix between tennis and pickleball. We believe The Heights Racquet and Social Club will enhance the health and general welfare of the community. These sports contribute to a healthy lifestyle and recreation and will provide an opportunity for Mendota Heights residents to participate in sports that have an easy entry level and general popularity. The initial response to the Heights Racquet & Social Club has been very positive as we field inquiries and schedule tours for prospective members. We believe strongly that the Club will be an excellent addition to the City of Mendota Heights. Sincerely, Glenn Baron Partner The Heights Racquet & Social Club 21 4a1. 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 666666666666666666666666666666666666666 6 6666 666666666 6 66 6 6666 66666 6 6 6 666 66666666666666666FMF M FMFM FM FM FM FM FM FM F M F M 6NORTHLAND DRHIGHWAY 13MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD PILOT KNOB RDENTERPRISE DR SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYSIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYHIGHWAY 13Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN Location Aerial Map1415 Mendota Heights Road Date: 1/23/2024 City of Mendota Heights0310 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 22 4a2. 23 4a3. November 28, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 9 1.A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING A GRADING PLAN, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY SITE WORK. 2.THE PROPOSED PROJECT MUST COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. ALL PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. 3.ALL EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS AS APPROVED IN THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN MUST BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY GRADING AND SITE WORK ACTIVITIES. SUCH MEASURES MUST REMAIN IN PLACE FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL PROPER SITE RESTORATION PLANS ARE COMPLETED. 4.ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY MUST COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES. 5.ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AND 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON WEEKENDS. 6.CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE CONTAINED ONSITE. ANY ENCROACHMENT MAY REQUIRE A CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT WITH ADJACENT/NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. Further discussion: Commissioner Corbett commented that there have been multiple cases like this, which may have even been less of a request, but were denied and made to conform with the setbacks. He appreciated the planning and design but noted that they would appear to come down to financial aspects, which is not a suitable reason. He commented that the property may be irregular, but that has been the same in previous requests that have been denied and therefore would support consistency. Commissioner Johnson noted that a second level could not be added because of the framing of the existing home, which could not support the additional load. Commissioner Corbett stated that while it would be inconvenient and a higher cost, there would be options to do that and ways to add space that would conform to the standards. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1 (Corbett) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 6, 2023 meeting. B)PLANNING CASE 2023-28 GLENN BARON, 1415 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD – CUP AND VARIANCE Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp explained that Glenn Baron, the applicant and owner of the property located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct outdoor Padel and Pickleball courts (outdoor recreation) and a Variance from City Code Section 12-1D-15(E), which prohibits signs that are painted directly on the outside wall of buildings. 24 4a4. November 28, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 9 Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Corbett asked the justification for painting versus a sign. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that the practical difficulty is the orientation of the building, how it sits, and for the purpose of wayfinding. Commissioner Corbett asked if a regular sign was considered as this is a prohibited application for signage. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that a sign would not be permitting either in the interpretation of the ordinance. Commissioner Corbett commented that there would seem to be some type of signage that would be applicable. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that the applicant does have the right to request a variance. She stated that the applicant originally requested a mural and in the way the sign ordinance is drafted, murals are not addressed. She stated that if the wall were painted with a mural that would not be addressed by the ordinance. She stated that the ordinance does say a sign cannot be painted on a wall and therefore a variance can be requested from that standard. She stated that there is ambiguity between signage and mural. She stated that a monument sign could be used. Chair Field asked how much signage the applicant could have if a sign were allowed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that this would be about 100 square feet. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that this is also a multi-tenant building which has additional signage provisions. She stated that this is also an industrial property which would allow a comprehensive sign package that would provide additional flexibility. She stated that she is not sure where a mural would fit and perhaps that is something that should be considered more comprehensively. She noted that the City has provided flexibility to its sign standards. Commissioner Stone commented that the signage on the building looks nice and believed that this would also look nice. 25 November 28, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 9 Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp commented that there has been a trend towards more murals and painted buildings and many cities are addressing that through a conditional use permit process. Commissioner Corbett commented that while he appreciates the discussion, he would think there should be more consideration towards why it was expressly prohibited. Commissioner Stone commented that while he agrees, when driving through that area there are buildings that need to be updated and this building is being updated in a way that benefits and improves the community. Commissioner Corbett commented that he agrees that the space looks nice, and he has talked with the business about becoming a member. He stated that he is not against this but believes that it would warrant serious and further review. He stated that they should at least consider what the previous concerns were that prohibited this use. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Glenn Baron, applicant, commented that they liked the look of the proposed sign. He stated that in terms of wayfinding, the entry to the club is by the dock area and this would provide wayfinding to direct people around the side of the building. He stated that while a monument sign could be used, he did not believe it would be as effective. Commissioner Corbett asked if the applicant explored using anti-graffiti metal signage. Mr. Baron replied that he was told that was not allowed, which is why they proposed painting on the building. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that would also not be allowed. Mr. Baron replied that they could explore a sign, but believed that was also not allowed. Commissioner Corbett commented that he agrees that it looks clean, but perhaps in five years it would not look the same. Mr. Baron commented that if the painting fades or needs attention, they would repaint. Commissioner Johnson asked if the applicant has thought about putting entrance along with the arrow. Mr. Baron commented that could be a good idea. Commissioner Corbett asked if the applicant has considered the allowed use for the dog business’s bathroom area. 26 November 28, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 9 Mr. Baron replied that they were not aware of that but noted that they would respond to that with the placement of that space. He did not doubt that the court could be moved to the west and still have adequate space for the dog area. He confirmed that staff could check the variance to determine the exact space designation and ensure they do not conflict. Commissioner Stone asked if the applicant owns the space. Mr. Baron confirmed that he owns the building and is also a partner in the racquet club. Commissioner Stone asked if the applicant is planning any other projects. Mr. Baron replied that this is the project they have been working on and already have 90 members, with the plan to open later this week. He stated that people appreciate outdoor courts in the summer, which is why they hope to add that amenity. Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be consideration for lighting at some time. Mr. Baron replied that he is unsure that would be needed as dusk comes around 9:00 p.m. in the summertime. He commented that if there were lighting he did not think that would cause a problem as there are not homes in the area and perhaps he would come back in the future if they would like to add that. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that there are not specific standards to affixing a piece of wood to the building which could have the mural. She reviewed the Code language specific to industrial property and the ability to have a comprehensive signage plan which would allow exceptions to the signage regulations. She stated that there has been a similar issue with window signage, as under the strict interpretation of Code that would be affixed to the wall and would therefore be prohibited but has been allowed. She commented that there are exceptions and nuisances in the Code that make it difficult to determine the intent. Chair Field commented that the difficulty that he has is that the whole wall is the signage, and the blue color is intended to draw the attention of passing vehicles and therefore seems like a huge sign. He stated that he would hate to set a standard that would deviate and would like to find an alternative. He stated that perhaps the wall was painted blue with a sign in front of it. Commissioner Corbett commented that he understands the need for the sign as he almost walked into the dog business when trying to go into the business as you would not think the entrance is near the docks. He stated that approving this at this time would seem premature. He believed that there should be additional consideration of murals and why they were prohibited and perhaps the issue is addressed on the larger scale rather than through a variance. Commissioner Johnson asked if affixed letters on the wall would be allowed. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that would be allowed. Commissioner Johnson stated that lettering could then be affixed onto the wall. 27 November 28, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 9 Chair Field commented that he would like to see it confined to 100 square feet, recognizing that the lettering may fall into that square footage but with the blue the entire wall becomes a sign. He commented on other requests the City has considered for similar signage. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that those other users and requests received a variance from the standard and use a comprehensive sign package. She noted that the schools are also in an R-1 district rather than the industrial district and therefore is handled differently. She stated that the square footage of the lettering was calculated while wayfinding and borders were excluded from the square footage calculation. She stated that the arrow would be considered wayfinding and would not be included in the calculation, noting that the arrow would be set around the words to determine the square footage of the sign portion. Commissioner Udell noted that the sign area would be 96 square feet, inclusive of the arrow. Commissioner Stone asked if this would be the same sign that exists on the building. Mr. Baron noted that is a banner. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp commented that the building could not be painted at this time because of the weather. She provided the scenario that this were to come forward as part of a comprehensive sign package, which would allow exceptions, and asked if that would make the Commission more comfortable. Commissioner Stone commented that he likes the proposal and did not see a difference as to whether this were painted on the building or having a sign on the building. He stated that he likes the idea that this could be repainted if needed and did not see a concern. Chair Field stated that he also likes this, but as it applies to the ordinance there needs to be consistency and definition. Commissioner Corbett agreed that it would look sharp but also believes that this could be done in a conforming way. Chair Field asked if there is any timeline for the applicant. Mr. Baron replied that they would not be painting or installing the courts at this time but would like to start planning for the outdoor courts as soon as possible. Chair Field stated that perhaps they could provide a straw poll about the outdoor courts, recognizing that the issue is with the variance. He stated that perhaps this could then be tabled to allow more investigation into the signage issue. He stated that perhaps there could be a change to the ordinance to allow murals, this could then be declared a mural, and this could be approved through that method. 28 November 28, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 9 Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp commented that may be a topic on the agenda for the meeting the following night. Commissioner Katz agreed that this could be discussed the following night with the Council and approved the following week at the City Council meeting which would allow a path forward without the variance. He stated that there is language within the Code already which would allow this type of signage through the use of a comprehensive sign package in the industrial district. Commissioner Corbett commented that this is blatantly prohibited and therefore they should pump the brakes and find a path forward. Mr. Baron commented that he thought that this looked good, but he is not married to this concept and will put up whatever is allowed by Code. He stated that if the preference is for an affixed sign, he could bring that back. Chair Field explained that the intention would be to pause this, as they will be considering some changes to the Code which could then potentially allow this. Commissioner Corbett stated that he would be okay conditionally approving the CUP based on consideration for the square footage of the dog use area. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp commented that could be done, but would suggest tabling this to allow adjusting the site plan to accommodate for the dog use area. Chair Field conducted a straw poll on the outdoor courts and confirmed consensus of all the Commissioners in support of the CUP conditional upon accommodation for the dog use area. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO ELECT AN EXTENSION OF THE 60-DAY REVIEW PERIOD TO FEBRUARY 29, 2024 AND TABLE CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUEST TO JANUARY 30, 2024. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 New Business Chair Field noted that there will be an item to consider in December and confirmed the consensus of the Commission to hold the meeting on December 20, 2023. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:30 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 29 MEETING DATE: January 30, 2024 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager SUBJECT: 2024 Meeting Dates BACKGROUND The 2024 calendar for the Planning Commission includes the following proposed meeting dates at 7:00pm: Tuesday, January 30 Wednesday, February 28 Tuesday, March 26 Tuesday, April 23 Tuesday, May 28 Tuesday, June 25 Tuesday, July 30 Tuesday, August 27 Tuesday, September 24 Tuesday, October 22 Tuesday, November 26 Thursday, December 19 Requested Action Approve the Planning Commission meeting dates as proposed. 30 4b.